 |
| Levels of Coverage in Question |
Among the issues raised by the second level UIM carrier defendant in this case involving two (2) levels of UIM coverage was an argument that the claim against the second level UIM carrier was premature given that it was not clear as to whether or not the Plaintiff’s alleged damages would be fully covered by the first level of UM coverage.
The court emphasized that, while the second level of UM carrier was entitled to a credit for the policy limits under the first level UIM coverage, the Plaintiff was not required to exhaust the first level of UM coverage before pursuing the secondary coverage available from the second level UM carrier.
The court also addressed the separate issue of whether the Plaintiff properly also included a claim against the uninsured tortfeasor in this matter and whether that was an improper joinder.
The court reviewed cases on this issue involving permissive joinder of tort and UIM claims under Pa. R.C.P. 2229 and found that the same were indeed permitted. In this regard, Judge Binder elected to follow the approach enunciated by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Bingham v. Poswistilo, 24 Pa. D. & C. 5th 17 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2011 Nealon, J.) and allowed the claims to proceed into discovery under the same caption.
Accordingly, the court overruled the objections to Joinder at this pre-trial stage of the case without prejudice to the rights of the parties to request a bifurcation at the trial of the tort and the UIM claims and/or to otherwise request limits on the disclosure of the identity or existence of insurance coverage at trial.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (Nov. 6, 2024).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.